G.R. No. A.C. No. 95 October 20, 1970
CLEMENTE M. SORIANO, complainant, vs. ENRIQUE MEDINA as Commissioner, Public Service Commission, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Clemente M. Soriano, as lawyer for Tita C. Bayhon, filed an administrative case against Public Service Commissioner Enrique Medina on May 6, 1965. The charges were: (1) serious misconduct through falsification of public documents; (2) serious misconduct and inefficiency through gross ignorance of the law, partiality, and corrupt practices; and (3) serious misconduct through corrupt practices. The case was investigated by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Juan P. Enriquez.
Regarding the first charge, evidence showed that in an information sheet submitted under oath to the Commission on Appointments on May 6, 1963, respondent answered “No” to a question asking if any court or administrative case was pending against him. It was established that a 1956 municipal court decision had found him guilty of slight physical injuries against his wife, imposing a fine. Respondent explained he understood the question to refer only to unfinished cases pending in 1963.
The second charge involved respondent’s actions concerning operators Tita C. Bayhon and Rodrigo Lim. Bayhon operated under a provisional permit. Based on a complaint from Lim and an investigation report from PSC inspector Leoncio Paredes confirming violations (including overcharging and operating without proper receipts and licenses), and Bayhon’s own admissions in proceedings before the City Fiscal, respondent suspended Bayhon’s operation on December 18, 1964. The PSC en banc later maintained this suspension. Conversely, Bayhon complained about Lim’s taxicabs being dilapidated and operating with violations. Inspector Paredes investigated and found the charges true, filing seven verified complaints against Lim. However, Lim’s operation was not immediately suspended. The complaints against Lim faced procedural delays and were eventually dismissed for lack of interest after Paredes failed to appear at a hearing.
The third charge alleged a violation of the Anti-Graft Law, as respondent penned a decision granting a certificate of public convenience to Juan Sierra, whose wife is the sister of the wife of respondent’s brother, Angel Medina. Angel Medina later became the manager of Sierra’s taxicab business.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Commissioner Enrique Medina is administratively liable for the charges of: (1) falsification of a public document; (2) gross ignorance of the law, partiality, and corrupt practices in handling the cases of operators Bayhon and Lim; and (3) corrupt practices in relation to the grant of a certificate to Juan Sierra.

RULING

The Court dismissed all charges against respondent Commissioner Enrique Medina.
On the first charge, the Court found the offense not established. It accepted respondent’s explanation that he interpreted the question on the information sheet as referring only to pending, unfinished cases in 1963, not a concluded case from 1956, and that there was no intent to evade.
On the second charge, the Court found no partiality or gross ignorance of the law. Respondent’s suspension of Bayhon’s operation was justified based on the inspector’s report and her own admissions under a provisional permit that allowed cancellation for violations. The PSC en banc confirmed this order. In contrast, Lim held a regular certificate, and the Public Service Act required notice and hearing before suspension or revocation, except in specific circumstances to avoid serious public damage. The non-suspension of Lim before a hearing was a discretionary act not necessarily showing partiality. The procedural delays in Lim’s case were attributed to reassignments and the investigator’s failure to appear, not to respondent’s misconduct.
On the third charge, the Court found no violation. While respondent’s brother-in-law was employed by the grantee, there was no evidence that respondent had his brother accept that employment; the employment arose from the family relationship between the grantee and the brother-in-law.
The investigator had recommended a reprimand for partiality due to the differing treatment of Bayhon and Lim. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, distinguishing the legal status of Bayhon’s provisional permit from Lim’s regular certificate and the procedural requirements applicable to each. The Court concluded the charges were unsubstantiated.